1. 1 Multiple Regression A single numerical response variable, Y. Multiple numerical explanatory variables, X 1, X 2,…, X k

2. 2 Multiple Regression

3. 3 Example Y, Response – Effectiveness score based on experienced teachers’ evaluations. Explanatory – Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, Test 4.

4. 4 Test of Model Utility Is there any explanatory variable in the model that is helping to explain significant amounts of variation in the response?

5. 5 Conclusion At least one of Test 1, Test 2, Test 3 or Test 4 is providing statistically significant information about the evaluation score. The model is useful. Maybe not the best, but useful.

6. 6 Individual Slope Parameters In order to see what statistical tests of hypothesis for the various parameters in multiple regression model indicate, we need to go back to simple linear regression.

7. 7 SLR – EVAL on Test 1 Predicted Eval = 329.23 + 1.424*Test1 For each additional point scored on Test 1, the Evaluation score increases by 1.424 points, on average.

8. 8 Explained Variation R 2 = 0.295, only 29.5% of the variation in Evaluation is explained by the linear relationship with Test 1.

9. 9 Inference on t-Ratio = 2.97 P-value = 0.0074 Reject the null hypothesis that =0, because the P-value is so small. There is a statistically significant linear relationship between EVAL and Test 1.

10. 10 Model with Test 1 If Test 1 is the only explanatory variable in the model, then the scores for Test 2, Test 3 and Test 4 are ignored by this model. What happens if we add Test 2 to the model with Test 1?

11. 11

12. 12 Model with Test 1, Test 2 Predicted EVAL = 129.38 + 1.221*Test1 + 1.511*Test2 For each additional point on Test 1, while holding Test 2 constant, the Evaluation score increases by 1.221 points, on average.

13. 13 Model with Test 1, Test 2 Predicted EVAL = 129.38 + 1.221*Test1 + 1.511*Test2 For each additional point on Test 2, while holding Test 1 constant, the Evaluation score increases by 1.511 points, on average.

14. 14 Explained Variation R 2 = 0.367, 36.7% of the variation in Evaluation is explained by the linear relationship with Test 1 and Test 2.

15. 15 Explained Variation R 2 = 0.367 – Test 1 and Test 2. R 2 = 0.295 – Test 1 alone. 0.367 – 0.295 = 0.072, 7.2% of the variation in EVAL is explained by the addition of Test 2 to Test 1.

16. 16 Parameter Estimates – Test 2 Has Test 2 added significantly to the relationship between Test 1 and Evaluation? Note that this is different from asking if Test 2 is linearly related to Evaluation!

17. 17 Parameter Estimates – Test 2 t-Ratio = 1.51 P-value = 0.1469 Because the P-value is not small, Test 2’s addition to the model with Test 1 is not statistically significant.

18. 18 Parameter Estimates – Test 2 Although R 2 has increased by adding Test 2, that increase could have happened just by chance. The increase is not large enough to be deemed statistically significant.

19. 19 Parameter Estimates – Test 1 Does Test 1 add significantly to the relationship between Test 2 and Evaluation? Note that this is different from asking if Test 1 is linearly related to Evaluation!

20. 20 Parameter Estimates – Test 1 t-Ratio = 2.52 P-value = 0.0205 Because the P-value is small, Test 1’s addition to the model with Test 2 is statistically significant.

21. 21 Parameter Estimates – Test 1 If we had started with a model relating Test 2 to EVAL, adding Test 1 would result in an increase in R 2. That increase is large enough to be deemed statistically significant.